I think this branch of our discussion is important enough to be discussed before we make advances on the main topic. What you said in your last post makes a lot of sense, but there's still something I don't understand, and I hope you can clarify for me.
Being important as you say it is, and I'm inclined to agree with you, why do you think philosophy strikes some people as quasi-nonsense? There is a striking difference between the way philosophers and scientists think, and I find the scientific approach to thinking very close to my own while philosophy is almost completely foreign to my cognitive processes.
Let me describe what is the essential difference as I perceive it. One one extreme we have the physicist, who limits the realm of his reason to facts that can be objectively asserted and the logical relationships between those facts. On the other extreme we have the philosopher, who not only deals mostly with issues that cannot be objectively verified, but commits the greater sin (from my perspective) of trying to establish logical relationships between poorly-defined concepts. In my opinion that is what strikes people of a scientific bent as quasi-nonsensical.
So my question to you is, what do you think is the value of dealing with subjective issues in as loose a way as philosophers traditionally do? I assume there is some value to it, I just don't know what it could be.